Money Moral Dilemma: Should I keep the refund I was sent in error for my damaged barbecue?

Bonnypitlad

What a question, of course you should keep it, you lucky devil. If you want to do the “right thing” ensure you purchase all your steaks, sausages, buns and beer to the value of £400 in the future from the same supermarket to show your appreciation and loyalty. That will give you a nice warm feeling and satisfy Karma

keithyno.1

This is a strange one. From what you've said, you didn't complain about the damage to the BBQ or ask for a replacement or a refund. Yet the seller's taken it upon themselves to automatically issue a refund to you, without you even asking for it?

If that's the case then keep the refund. If the seller's daft enough to give away money that's their lookout - just be a happy recipient. You've done nothing wrong, dishonest or misleading, or tried to obtain a refund under false pretences. 

I suggest that people on here who are saying you should return the refund are just jealous that they haven't had such a stroke of good luck.

captain_sparkle

Is it not the same as a bank mistakenly depositing money into your account? or finding money in the street? Isn't that "theft" or something similar? Anyway, I would tell the company, from experience they won't do anything about it, that would involve a whole new procedure that they won't want to be bothered with. For all the people saying "keep it & don't tell them" I won't be having any business deals with you lot!! 😂

pem

Firstly you have stated that the bbq was received damaged even if only cosmetic.
you were entitled to receive a 100% perfect item so replacement or compensation was due,

I would contact the supermarket thanking them for the refund and asking them when they are going to collect the damaged bbq 

if they reply stating they will collect it you could either offer to buy it for a fair discount or let them collect it and purchase a replacement with the money they have refunded 

dirtmother

You got a spontaneous refund because the item 'wasn't right' (and I do recognise that terminology from companies) - and it wasn't.

I'd suggest simply doing some good with the money.

daviesr1

Similar but different: I ordered a water feature, after it arrived and I set it up I found it had a slow leak. Not a lot, but the decking it sat on gets damp even when not operating and it gradually looses water. So I notified the company expecting a replacement. I received an email saying they no longer supply this model, they're providing a full refund, and to dispose of the product as they don't want it returned. 

I've received the full refund, but I'm reluctant to dispose of the water feature we took ages finding and selecting when I can probably seal the inside to stop the leak.

A while ago my wife ordered some tablets from a reseller on amazon. We received them, then a few days later we received a second delivery of the same tablets. When she reported this back to the seller they said keep them.

Companies these days can't be bothered to deal with returns and are happy to write off the loss. Just accept the refund and use the product.

SirDaemon

I would not take any advice for this type of matter from people in a forum. It very much looks like you either need to contact the company or seek legal advice before keeping the money. This is not a moral issue but a legal one.

Jason9091

This is an unusual question since the person asking it is making an assumption. How do they know the refund was sent in error?

Jason9091

Sungold8 said:

What a question. Of course you should let them know and I think you probably know that as well. Maybe a chance they’ll leave things as they are because of your honesty. Ryanair refunded me twice once for the same flights and despite my best efforts to tell them nothing was done. My conscience was clear.

"Of course you should let them know..."

I imagine the person asking the question is looking for a reason with logical/legal/moral justification/explanation.

Jason9091

grajay said:

There is a specific section in the Theft Act 1968 which covers this scenario

"Section 5(4) Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds."

What's makes you so sure a mistake was made?